🚀 go-pugleaf

Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> You sure looked like an idiot when you posted that 450k document yesterday.
> Have you cancelled it and sent yourself an admonishment by email yet?

Yes, I thought so. But you thought I should publish an activity report.
No, I havent' cancelled it, or admonished myself. There are no accepted
guidelines that can be objectively applied for rejecting articles based
on size.

>
> > > *apology* of that one fellow, after which he posted another apology to
> > > nz.general only, seemingly prompted by his service provider.  Asshole.
> 
> > As noted, "Sorry, I was tired" completely out of any context wasn't
> > recognisable as an apology to me. He was emailed; he had the option to
> > reply again with more clarity, and he did. Where is the problem?
> 
> His apology was quite readily recognisable to me and I don't see how anyone t
> followed the thread could have misinterpreted it.  He also seemed quite since

Ok, well I did. We aren't going to agree on this one, but again, where is
the harm. As I emailed to him, he could always, as he did (admittedly he
chose fewer groups) to post it again, with clarity.

And if (we assume) he was apologising for cross-posting to a bunch of
irrelevant groups, he could have set the follow-ups appropriately
(poster would IMO be a good choice). Even his apology was followed up:
Obviously the person who replied dind't get it either...

Sorry, I was tired.
--
Timothy J. "SNORKLE" McCorkle
ex.MM1(ss)nuc [SSN-575,SSN-607]
"I ought to be a chickenpot pie" g. fritz
          >,_;-**o\oHo/o**-;_,<

> Timothy J. McCorkle wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I was tired.
> > --
> > Timothy J. "SNORKLE" McCorkle
> > ex.MM1(ss)nuc [SSN-575,SSN-607]
> > "I ought to be a chickenpot pie" g. fritz
> >           >,_;-**o\oHo/o**-;_,<
> ````````````````````````````````````````PR
> Oops! Where's the . . . .

> I've seen your recently posted missive on, among other things, where messages

the "recently" is not accepted, in case you want to make a point of it
later.

> should be posted.  However, it seems to be somewhat contradictory.  In the
> section on where to post messages (your "personal summary"), it seems to say 
> that nz.general is the place to post things that don't fit anywhere else - 
> that sports should be discussed in nz.rec, politics in nz.politics, tv shows
> in nz.arts.  The FAQ to which you provide a pointer, though, describes 
> nz.general as "The cesspool of the nz.* heirarchy, Everything tends to be
> discussed here with other groups only picking up the scraps."  Well, Wayne, 
> which is it?  With the number of transitions and tangents that a typical 
> thread may go through over its life, I'm completely happy with the latter.
> Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

As noted elsewhere that is a recent change.
But I really admire the way you demonstrate your skill with selective
(with spelling errors) quoting. Let's quote the next sentence as well:

If at all posssible, you should use a more specialized nz.* group in order
to make sure your post stands out from the clutter.

You seem to be picking up on a descriptive comment and treating it as
prescriptive. Let's take a simple case where we can get a YES/NO, nice
boolean answer: do you believe that this FAQ as it stands, accepts that
commercial for sale messages are acceptable in nz.general?

> > 2. I don't just cancel the posts. I also email each person (for the first
> > offence at least), explaining why, and what they should do as an
> > alternative.
> 
> So that they may live their lives (or at least post) according to *your* 
> precepts.  Cos as everyone knows, Waynefulness is next to Godliness.

Look, when you descend into personal abuse, it just shows your lack of
arguments.

It is very simple: show me which of these precepts isn't accepted by the
usenet community (let's take 85% as a target level of acceptability).

Stop waffling about vague generalities, and get down to specifics.
If you can.

> You played a clever trick, and some of them fell for it.  Take a bow, Wayne,
> you're *so* smart.

You still didn't respond to any of my points. Nice snipping. What mail
posting software doesn't show you the sender?

> You must be forgetting, Wayne, that in private e-mail you invited me to
> discuss this issue in front of this audience.  Forgot to take your pills toda

Look, just cut the personal attacks and debate the issues. If you are going
to override of followups, you should say so. If you *really* think
nz.general is interested, fine. But having alerted them to the subject,
I think the best place is nz.net.admin.

> > > mentions nz.general.  Just curious - how do you know which newsgroup peop
> > > follow a thread in?  Or was this just a little white lie on your part? 
> > You can see where people have posted/read before. Ian Riddler's post
> > hadn't come through at the time I corresponded with you.
> 
> Yeah, right.  I might just have a cruise through your 450k posting to check u
> on that story.

How inane. Dopn't post on what you plan to do. Why not do it, and then
report back, rather than making insinuations.

> You have not been elected moderator.  You are making a mockery of a public
> forum.

Gratis asserta, gratis negata.

I believe you make a mockery of this public forum. Who is right?

> If people have read the nz.* FAQ, then they should be aware that they are swimmi
> ng
> in a "cesspool".  I don't think I can subject them to much worse than that.

If that is the consensus that nz.general *should* be accepted as a cess-pool,
then I will happily desist in all activities. I have better things to do
with my time.





--
system@codeworks.gen.nz  Wayne McDougall ICHTHUS <*> Impeach President Clark!!
        A U C K L A N D   D E B A T I N G   A S S O C I A T I O N   (Inc)
Interested in debating, public speaking or adjudicating in Auckland?
Send me email or write to President@ada.org.nz, or ADA, P O Box 3233, Auckland